1464897265naomikleincop21iliasbartolini666

Hot & Bothered, a new climate politics podcast for the 99% that I’m co-hosting with the journalist Kate Aronoff, is growing up. In our first episode, we talked to Bill McKibben and Tara Houska. You can read more and listen here at the Dissent magazine website. They’re hosting the show.

Our second episode, featuring Naomi Klein, just went up today.

In a perfect world, you’d be able to listen to it on a fancy Stitcher app embedded in this blog post. But I’m not good enough at this computer to make that world a reality!

But you can see my efforts here:

http://app.stitcher.com/splayer/f/90472/44669658

Also, you can find us at the iTunes store (*****please rate us there*****). And we would love love love to get your comments, questions, complaints, and any other feedback on social media, via #hotbotheredclimate. (Because #hotandbothered: you just don’t want to go there.)

Advertisements

1452701161COP21protesterJulienB666

First, the climate talks in Paris were a nail-biter. Then they were brutal disaster and a brilliant success at the same time. Now we’ve all moved on. Or have we?

Now that the emotional dust has settled, Kate Aranoff and I have hosted an audio blog (basically a one-off podcast) with Dissent magazine that parses what went down in Paris.

In Dissenting Climate: After Paris, What’s Next? we did a recap of the recaps; Kate taped a report from Paris, where she hung out with climate justice activists mobilizing around the talks, from French anti-fascist organizers to the global indigenous movement; and I interviewed Timmons Roberts, a leading scholar of climate politics and long-time observer (and sometimes participant) of global climate summits.

Sometimes you just have to talk it out.

Kate’s segment is great because it’s so rare that you get to hear one—never mind four or five—distinct voices from the global climate justice movement. And in my interview with Timmons we covered a ton of ground, from rich countries’ lack of follow-through on their promises of climate finance to the global south, to Timmons’ argument that we’re now seeing in Rhode Island the emergence of a real coalition behind a kind of green new deal that could inspire analogous efforts in other regions.

Along with the blog, we’ve posted links to all the articles and documents that came up during the show.

Part of this “audio blog” experiment is to see what it might look like to do a podcast that bridges the narrower audiences for climate wonkery, climate justice activism, and climate news with the broader world of people who care about politics and care about justice, but who are struggling to find a way to connect to the climate issue. The good news is, Kate and I aren’t done, yet. There could be more talking cure coming. But more on that later.

This is just a place-holder to note that I’m eagerly awaiting the May 2016 release of an issue of Public Culture—a fantastic academic and cultural journal—on the theme, Climate Change and the Future of Cities. An essay of mine on São Paulo, called “The Rationed City,” will be in the issue. Long timelines in academia are frustrating. But worry not! Sea levels will be rising for millennia, thanks to the carbon already emitted by human civilization. So there will be lots of time for readers to digest the issue and take thoughtful action.

(From the Huffington Post)

(From the Huffington Post)

Is Greenpeace on a roll? Forget the kayaktivists for a moment. They’re also doing something interesting on Greece, using a touch of their symbolic capital to draw attention to the country’s potential for economic-ecological solar win-wins. This is just a quick note following up on my piece on the lesson’s of that country’s fiscal water-boarding, austerity and climate politics. I’m not delving into details.

But here are the basics. Greenpeace has set up an Indiegogo campaign called Solarization of Greece, which opens with they pretty attractive subhead “From Austerity to Abundance.” The basic logic is pretty straightforward:

With energy poverty being one of the most dramatic symptoms of the Greek crisis (6 out of 10 households are struggling to pay their energy bills), investing in the abundant sun, the country’s biggest asset, will be key to a Greek recovery.

It will help us put money back in real people’s pockets by reducing their energy bills, it will help put people back to work with new skills and opportunities, and it will help support a renewable energy revolution that is sweeping the globe.

[…]

Currently, hundreds of millions of Euros are wasted every year importing expensive oil for power generation onto the so-called “Island of the Sun”, while the island’s most generous energy source remains underutilised. Worse still, people living there continue to face serious energy shortages.

Cheap solar energy will not only provide immediate financial relief for families, it will also drastically reduce expensive oil consumption, and create much needed jobs; particularly among the young.

They’ve even made a cute little video:

Greenpeace’s ED, Kumi Naidoo, drives the point home on in a Huffington Post piece:

Greece’s short-lived ‘PV Spring’ of 2009-2013, driven by a feed-in tariff scheme, provided a glimpse of the country’s real solar potential. Within five years installed solar capacity jumped from 47 to over 2,500 megawatts. A total of €4.5 billion was invested in modernising the energy sector and created around 50,000 jobs. In all, around 100,000 Greek families benefited from the rise of the solar PV industry in one of the European countries most renowned for its sun.

Today, Greece is in a position to do much more.

Now obviously you can’t turn around Greece’s equivalent of a Great Depression with an Indiegogo campaign. In part, because as that video shows, the intrinsic cuteness requirement of online feelgood campaigns gets grating—fast. Still, if the environmental movement shifts harder in this direction—low-carbon economic development, timed well, and widely communicated—it’s only for the good.

Solar panels alone won’t save us. But greens piling on to solarize Greece wouldn’t just give that country’s leftist political project a shot in the arm. (Um, and why wasn’t Left Platform leader and #grexit hawk Panos Lafazanis plumping for this kind of thing since January to all who would listen?) The green movement would also benefit from taking this kind of fight more seriously, building alliances with fighting political movements in the looming battle against ecoapartheid.

Former NASA climate scientist James Hansen arrested in front of the White House in August 2011

Former NASA climate scientist James Hansen arrested in front of the White House in August 2011

All over the internet, you can find reputable climate scientists circling the wagons around mainstream views on sea level rise. Why? Because climate scientist James Hansen, formerly of NASA, and 16 other scientists have released a study, not-yet peer-reviewed, that projects sea levels could rise by up to 10 feet by the end of this century—way faster than earlier studies have suggested—swamping cities like Shanghai and New York.

There are good reasons to both embrace and reject this study without reading it (or being able to understand it). 1. Hansen is one of the world’s leading climate scientists who has often been a bit of a hawk, out in front of the crowd, and subsequently been proving right. But 2. Hansen has increasingly joined up with activists, making his dire predictions suspicious—maybe he’s just trying to prime the climate action pump. But fascinating as all this is from a social studies of science perspective, it’s missing the point! Namely: that the most dangerous sea-level rise is probably avoidable through decarbonization.

On this point, actually, much more “mainstream” approaches agree. As Ben Strauss puts it, summarizing his research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:

By the end of this century, if global climate emissions continue to increase, that may lock in 23 feet of sea level rise, and threaten 1,429 municipalities that would be mostly submerged at high tide. Those cities have a total population of 18 million. But under a very low emissions scenario, our sea level rise commitment might be limited to about 7.5 feet, which would threaten 555 coastal municipalities: some 900 fewer communities than in the higher-emissions scenario.

Put more simply, some sea level rise is inevitable. But the most catastrophic outcomes depend on how much carbon we emit. The danger that cities face is a dependent variable. This is actually not remotely obvious to the world of climate resiliency, where designers and policy entrepreneurs specialize in fortifying cities from bad weather while remaining, in practice, ambivalent about the root causes of this danger—namely, carbon emissions.

(PS: why ultra-rapid sea level rise is a real prospect)

***

Back to Hansen. I find it strange that while techies and financiers obsess over “black swans“—implausible but possible catastrophic developments—climate activists and scholars are huffing that Hansen et al’s study is just a particularly grim scenario. So were World War 2 and the 2008 financial meltdown. And yet neither posed a threat to civilization on the level of climate change. All smart people should worry about plausible outlier scenarios.

In other words, the climate community might benefit from a little less respectability politics, and a little more creative thinking on cities and climate change. While oceans swollen by global warming threaten to swallow our cities, mainstream climate debate still accepts a bizarre division of labor: countries are supposed to pass carbon taxes and energy policies, little communities are supposed to install solar panels, and cities are supposed to fortify themselves. When we accept this framework, we disarm one of our most potent low-carbon weapons: cities, and the whole wide range of political actors who take urbanization as their object of struggle.

In fact, changes to the urban form, necessary under all scenarios, and potentially funded by the mountains of idle cash lurking in our economy, could slash carbon emissions by a massive amount, directly and indirectly, without building a single solar panel or windmill. The New Urbanist Peter Calthrope estimates that by 2050, the US could meet half its decarbonization targets through pro-density planning alone. Even if it were just a quarter, the effort would be essential. Further emissions reductions could be achieved indirectly by reducing the private consumption of so much unnecessary stuff (produced elsewhere) by redirecting city-dwellers’ time and energy, away from buying unneeded crap and toward spending time with other people (playing sports, watching plays, getting drunk, etc) in ways that safe, dense urban spaces facilitate.

This approach need not have anything to do with “green austerity” (which is a terrible idea). There are ways of pursuing such an urban agenda in ways that would dramatically improve the quality of life of the poor and working class.

We should treat the Hansen study not as a threat to scientists’ reputation for comfortably conservative estimates, but as fuel for the intellectual and political work needed to survive the 21st century. And that includes boldly transforming and decarbonizing the city.

Courtesy of the Guardian liveblog. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

Instant reaction: 6 theses on the climate politics of the Greek crisis #oxi #climate

  1. Those who consume a lot are prepared to slash the consumption of those who already consume less
    1. We already saw w the Volcker shock in the US that this could be waged from above, as a proxy class war, for a short period of time
    2. We now see how this austerity can be imposed indefinitely (or at least, this is what Eurozone elites are hoping to do PIGS countries, and especially Greece), pitting nations against each other
    3. Eco-apartheid is a real prospect, and the EU is not a firewall against it but, perhaps, its most likely champion
  2. Austerity can be imposed in and by liberal democracies—but not indefinitely. There are forces on the right and left who will challenge it, and they may succeed by banding together. They won’t necessarily care about carbon concentration in the atmosphere. Climate activists should be very careful to not line up behind austerity. (Just repeating “green jobs” a hundred times a week is not enough; when push comes to shove, the substance of outsiders’ economic plans will be subjected to ruthless scrutiny)
  3. Germany: One of the world’s most advanced countries, on the energy front, is also the most powerful enforcer of austerity in terms of economics. It is very much a model for future climate politics, but not an attractive one!
  4. By analogy, the European Union, with Germany its most powerful member, sends a similar message: pro carbon reductions, friendly to austerity, prepared to enforce intense internal stratification, and suffering, to keep the current elites in power. Note that Syriza is one of EU’s most progressive governments on the migrants question. European elites, on the other hand, have only awful news for future climate migrants
  5. If a version of the proposal that Tsipras and Varoufakis presented to the Eurogroup before the referendum—a leftist, redistributive austerity—is revived and implemented (maybe w promised debt restructuring), we’ll learn how viable a leftist austerity is in the absence of wartime mobilization. If EU and IMF elites were less caged in by their own rigid ideologies, more flexible in their self-interest, and more interested in the future of climate politics, they would have welcomed the Syriza left austerity proposal as an opportunity to experiment with this different model. If they were even smarter, they would have committed to invest EU structural funds into things like solar energy (and retrofits, etc) to revitalize Greece’s productive sector in a far-sighted way. I’m not saying that I support leftist austerity. But I would interested to see it in action. I hope I don’t have to
  6. Some mid-term lessons for climate activists:
    1. We must take economically populist positions and win by marching the democratic road, or the sacrifices we eventually demand (whether minor and sectoral or broad and sweeping) will have to be imposed by massive economic and political violence, and end up reinforcing criminal inequalities, or those sacrifices will be refused by other populist movements
    2. We need serious macro-economic thinking to make ideas like selective de-growth more than a slogan: how can the everyday economy of most people keep thriving even if long-strategic sectors like fossil fuels and the manufacture of polluting crap (fast fashion, “Secret Santa” gifts, etc) are wound down; the biggest liability of the leftist #oxi and especially #grexit camps in Greece is the lack of a real short- and mid-term plan to revive their economy if Greece ends up leaving the Eurozone
    3. Syriza rose in part out of disgust with austerity, but much of their credibility (rightly) came from being political outsiders, and hence the plausibility that they could tackle corruption (including of heavily concentrated private media) and shatter the oligarchy; climate politics are a politics of alignment; climate activists need to show that we’re not just against a few fossil fuel companies, but that we are credible partners of a coalition that will go after corruption and oligarchs (which exist in every country). We need to be ready to fight these other fights from the start.
    4. The Latin American pink tide was enabled by a boom in commodity exports, largely to China. It’s an extractivist model that’s bad for the climate, and bad for those economies. Greece can’t go down that road. Leaving aside questions of organization, culture, social movement structure, etc, Syriza could teach interesting lessons about the prospects of a mass leftist movement transforming society without plumping coffers with easy commodity export money. It could also be a laboratory for a clean energy start-up economy if its economic planners are clever and committed enough

(Sorry – too much rush for links)

From the March 2015 print edition of Labor Notes.

From the March 2015 print edition of Labor Notes.

We should all be able to work fewer hours. Shortening work hours, while raising the salary floor and instituting transparent worker-driven scheduling, could free up time for us to spend with loved ones in low-carbon leisure, while establishing the conditions for an equal division of care work.

This isn’t an idle fantasy. Elements of the European labor movement have shown that steps can be taken in this direction even under capitalism. Most exciting to me is a Dutch labor law that lets most workers unilaterally reduce their hours, while keeping pro-rated wages and benefits. This isn’t just about your average work day. It also implies a different idea of what a green job could be. More on that in a minute.

This March, Labor Notes followed a polemic attacking unions’ silence on overwork with “How Shorter Work Hours Can Help the Climate and Women’s Equality“, my interview with Professor Tom Malleson, the author of After Occupy: Economic Democracy for the 21st Century (Oxford University Press, 2014). In the interview, Tom argues that,

The crucial idea is work-sharing. Instead of an employer hiring one worker for 40 or 50 hours a week, the employer should hire more workers for fewer hours. We should be aiming for a 35- or even a 30-hour week. This would mean a little less money and less consumption. But if the jobs offer security, health, and pension benefits, then the evidence shows that once people get used to working fewer hours they come to love it and don’t want to go back to longer hours.

Malleson draws on examples of European labor reforms, achieved by unions, like the Dutch provision on cutting the work week. And he shows how shorter work hours would be better for the climate and for women. To be clear, Tom and I both feel that it’s important to raise the wage floor and to lower the wealth ceiling (by a lot). This isn’t about “green austerity” for workers and the poor. It’s about democratizing the economy, and working life along with it. (And of course, high mass consumption was never anything other than a self-consciously elitist, puritanical project in search of profits and in fear of democracy. And this is just a tiny smattering of what’s been written on this issue.)

After_occupyNow, obviously there’s no way to persuade hundreds of millions of workers to work shorter hours and to reduce their consumption without building out new infrastructures—social and material—that make really rewarding, inexpensive free time possible. In my essay Seize the Hamptons, I lay out one such vision. I focus on how we might urbanize low-carbon leisure by improving the quality of life in densifying suburbs through expansive cultural amenities, and by expanding workers and poor peoples’ access to the wild via regional infrastructures for mass vacationing.

There’s also the obvious issue that in the US today, part-time work is a catastrophe, not a solution. Pay is usually terrible. And as Michelle Chen has recently made clear, so-called “flexible scheduling” is a hellish practice that is destroying working people’s lives. In our Labor Notes interview, Tom talks about the importance of firms conceding “time sovereignty” to workers. That is, workers decide when they work. As the planet’s carbon budget plummets, though, we need steps we can take right now.

Waiting for each star to align is a luxury we don’t have. I don’t see a point in trying to organize to legally shorten everyone’s work week. That won’t fly in North America right now. (But note, unions all over Brazil are campaigning for a shorter work week, including a 30-hour work week for nurses; time isn’t a luxury just for the wealthy.) But we can aspire, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, to mandate the option of shorter hours, without sacrificing health and other benefits, without cutting the rate of hourly pay, and without granting bosses tyrannical powers to schedule working hours at short notice and without workers’ consent.

Maybe any government subsidized “green jobs” should offer workers the option to reduce hours and pay, but keep benefits. Or vice versa (if the worker’s partner, say, has benefits that cover the whole family). Maybe unions could experiment with such options in labor contracts. This kinds of tradeoff is not, by any means, an alternative to the bigger fights for universal healthcare, fully funded public pensions, and other forms of social security. But I do think it’s worth thinking creatively about what a “green job” actually consists of.

labors_timeThe bigger and more creative the conversation, the bigger and more creative our demands and coalitions will become. Decent part-time work isn’t, on its own, a silver bullet for a fossil fuel-powered capitalism that is inherently anti-democratic, dangerous to human survival, and profoundly unjust. But in the present context, it’s what André Gorz called a non-reformist reform, one formulated “in view of what should be made possible in terms of human needs.” As the planet changes, so do our needs, and so must our demands.

But revolutionary beginnings only appear to come from nowhere. We also need to re-master the history of earlier struggles within U.S. unions for shorter work weeks.

A green economy will only work if we democratize the workplace.